Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.
It's not a violation of net neutrality for two reasons: (1) There is no more net neutrality any more and (2) net neutrality applies to ISPs and backbone providers; it does not place restrictions on legislatures. It MAY be a violation of the 1st Amendment, however. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts if it passes.
A VPN that is connecting through some other state, or some other country would easily defeat this.
Not necessarily. Analysis of packet sizes, timing, etc. can identify which sites are visited with surprising accuracy. Failing that, the state could simply charge the $20/quarter charge for anyone who uses a VPN service, or make the penalty for accessing pornography through a VPN in order to avoid the charge so ridiculously great that no one would take the chance. People who use VPNs for accessing child porn get busted all the time.
This is, ff I may say so, nonsense. Describing numbers is easily done at a higher level of abstraction. Given the approximate number of possible partcles in the universe of 10^86, I can trivially describe a far larger numnber as 10^100.
Ah, but even at a higher level of abstraction, there are only a finite number of descriptions possible. I'm not claiming that the set of all describable numbers is contiguous. There are huge gaps. For example, the number 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10))))) is easily describable but the vast majority of numbers between zero and that number are not. No matter how abstract and wonderful your description language, it must have a finite alphabet and there is only room in the universe for a finite number of symbols.
No it is not complicated. American law does not apply outside American territory, period.
That's simply not true. There is a presumption of non-extraterritoriality in U.S. law which means that if a law doesn't state otherwise, it is presumed to apply only on U.S. soil (or U.S. military bases, etc.), but laws can explicitly state that they apply outside the U.S. and U.S. courts have found them enforceable (usually when a citizen returns to the U.S. after a foreign trip.) Notable examples are the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which make it a crime to bribe a foreign government. Another example is the Child Protect Act which makes it illegal for American citizens to hire child prostitutes even in countries where the practice is legal (eg. in the Netherlands, 16 years olds can legally work as prostitutes, but if a U.S. citizen hires one while visiting Amsterdam, they can be charged when they return to the U.S.). Another example are violations of certain travel restrictions, such as travel to Cuba, etc. Now, whether or not the search warrant in question is presumed to be non-extraterritorial or not is up to the Supreme Court to decide, but your blanket statement is clearly untrue.
I don't wish to sound snide: But I think you'll find, if you look more carefully, that It works very well: Infinite series are much of the foundation of calculus. Even countable numbers, involve "infinities" because they are unbounded.
Actually, if you look more closely, and critically, you'll find that things aren't nearly as simple as you describe. For example, what you call "countable numbers" are neither infinite in number, nor unbounded. One hits hard physical limits as one tries to express bigger and bigger numbers. Computers have finite storage. Even if we imagine a computer as large as the known universe, with one bit in every Planck volume, there is only a finite number of numbers describable. The "set of all natural numbers" is really a fantasy. If one looks closely enough, the foundations of calculus are also quite suspect.
The best discussion I've seen on many of these issues can be found in Norman Wildberger's
Math Foundation Series, on YouTube. He takes a very critical look at modern mathematics, especially the ideas of infinite sets and "real" numbers. It's definitely worth a look.
Fuse does not work. I physically unplugged the OnStar module in my car and I keep getting phone calls from them telling me that my car needs to be taken in for service because they cannot connect to it.
Just tell them you disconnected it because you don't want the OnStar feature. If the calls persist, just hang up on them. They'll eventually get the message. It sounds like you're letting yourself get bullied by your car company. Not a good idea.
I assume they are using the tag to find the basic URL. I could be wrong. I've done that manually to remove identifying information from links I want to share. I've often called for this to be a feature in web browsers: a copy canonical link button. I hope that's what Chrome is doing.
At one time they considered segregation and slavery legal. The SCOTUS was wrong. They are also wrong on several other things, too...
Actually, the SCOTUS was right. Slavery was legal at the time and it said so in the Constitution. Then the 13th Amendment was passed abolishing slavery. That's the point the original poster was making: if you want gun control, amend the Constitution.
The one important question: Were the messages sent via direct message or were they sent out as public tweets? The New York Times report leaves some ambiguity, but according to James Risen in The Intercept they were very public.
Of course they're public. The whole point is that no one can see who is receiving the messages. They're coded, of course, so only the intended recipient will know what they mean, but possibly even the sender doesn't know who that person is. If DMs were used, that would entirely defeat the purpose: might as well use a secure communications app. The points of classified ads in the past, or tweets today, is that they can be read anonymously, even from a public computer terminal without typing in any login credentials.
Since I usually use VLC for listening to streaming broadcasts of classical music, I will wait for an x64 Windows version.
Does classical music sound better when played on a 64 bit application than it does on a 32 bit? Remember, these "bits" aren't bits of resolution in the digitized audio signal, but rather they're simply the architecture of code: 64 bit code can in theory do more in less time. Streaming of classical music, even at high definition rates of 96kHz sampling frequency and 24 bits per channel of audio should work just fine even in a 32 bit application on any modern CPU.
They're like lots of IOT devices - wide open on the local network for nefarious things like cranking up the volume. Not so much for the exaggerated claim that it can be done from the Internet. That's not happening unless you went out of your way to specifically configure your NAT gateway to allow incoming connections to your TV, in which case it's your own damn fault.
But then you're just moving the security from one device (the television) to another (the router). So if a vulnerability is found in your router, perhaps a zero-day exploit for which a patch isn't available for several weeks, then your television is vulnerable as well. You might say something like "If your router is hacked, have have bigger problems than the fact that someone can control your TV!" That may be true, but it misses the point. There is NO GOOD REASON why televisions need to be designed in such a way that they are vulnerable to this kind of hacking, especially if people don't really want or need a lot of "smart TV" features, i.e. just watching over the air broadcasts, or DVD/BluRay discs, or playing video games. This is why I don't like smart TVs. A separate TV and streaming box is much safer and more flexible.
What really impressed me about Ursula Le Guin wasn't just her incredibly imaginative ideas, but also her great economy with language. She could say in a very short sentence what many writers would need a paragraph or two to say. As someone who has tried to do some writing myself, I really envy that gift.
Not lack of royalties, but a flood of low quality games that Atari had no control over.
Actually, some of the best games for the 2600 were made by third parties like Activision and Coleco (Pitfall, Demon Attack, etc.) and some of the worst were made by Atari (E.T., Pacman, etc.)
Nonsense. Having guys like him probing our infrastructure is a lot better than leaving the holes wide open for Putin and Xi Jingping. He is providing a public service. It may not be pleasant when you get pwned, but flu shots aren't pleasant either.
The difference is I choose whether or not to get a flu shot. If someone walked down the street jabbing random people with a hypodermic, I'd suggest harsh penalties for them too.
Why do Facebook, Apple, and others thing public information (like what your face looks like) is more secure than a private key that exists only in your mind?
They're not making any such claim. They're proposing using an image of your face as a captcha, not as a login credential.
But intent is typically a defense against a charge when you've done something that would otherwise be illegal. It's pretty scary when legal activity becomes illegal because of intent. If an advertising flyer is included in every newspaper and it contains ads for children's underwear, could a single guy be charged for failing to throw it in the garbage fast enough? This sounds very scary.
And of course they make no mention of option 3, which avoids both problems and actually protects user privacy: banning the collection of large amounts of data about large numbers of users in the first place.
The problem with that rule is it would effectively outlaw credit reporting agencies. Without those, it would be much harder for banks to offer loans and the effect on the economy of banks tightening up would be devastating, and it would make it virtually impossible for people to get mortgages. Only people rich enough to pay cash for a house would be able to afford one; everyone else would be paying rent to someone else. This would further increase the divide between the very rich, and everyone else.
Cable which can barely do 1080i on a good day. I have seen some broadcasts that were less thsn 480
How will the new TV with ATSC 3.0 broadcast TV spy/target ads at me if it isn't on Wifi or ethernet?
Don't know for sure, but my guess is that ATSC 3.0 tuners will not work without some form of Internet connectivity. It may not need to be 24/7, but probably at least once a week to upload viewing habits and download targeted ad specifications.
Except that users will perceive it as "this old website doesn't work", not "Chrome doesn't work", since the problems only happens in some websites and not others.
I disagree. Microsoft has been down that road. Remember when IE had something like 80% market share? People want all their websites to work, and they can download Firefox for free.
Years ago, websites were designed so that they rendered properly with Internet Explorer. Microsoft didn't have to follow any standards because they had the most widely used browser and Fuck You if you don't use IE.
Now Chrome is the most widely used browser and Google has decided to become the new Microsoft.
But keep in mind, Microsoft no longer dominates the browser market share and there's a reason. It was so difficult for web developers to make sites IE compliant that many non-commercial sites such as might be found at universities etc., recommended Firefox and when Chrome came out, Chrome or Firefox. It turns out there are enough non-commercial sites on the Internet that people started using non-IE browsers just cause Firefox or Chrome seemed to work better with all sites, and not just big commercial ones. If Google follows Microsoft's path, and (according to the article) half the websites on the Internet break in Chrome, it will drive people to Firefox or Edge or something else. There is competition in the free browser market!
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.
It's not a violation of net neutrality for two reasons: (1) There is no more net neutrality any more and (2) net neutrality applies to ISPs and backbone providers; it does not place restrictions on legislatures. It MAY be a violation of the 1st Amendment, however. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts if it passes.
A VPN that is connecting through some other state, or some other country would easily defeat this.
Not necessarily. Analysis of packet sizes, timing, etc. can identify which sites are visited with surprising accuracy. Failing that, the state could simply charge the $20/quarter charge for anyone who uses a VPN service, or make the penalty for accessing pornography through a VPN in order to avoid the charge so ridiculously great that no one would take the chance. People who use VPNs for accessing child porn get busted all the time.
I guess Slashdot was down as administrators were busy scrubbing all its terrorist content before running afoul of EU laws!
This is, ff I may say so, nonsense. Describing numbers is easily done at a higher level of abstraction. Given the approximate number of possible partcles in the universe of 10^86, I can trivially describe a far larger numnber as 10^100.
Ah, but even at a higher level of abstraction, there are only a finite number of descriptions possible. I'm not claiming that the set of all describable numbers is contiguous. There are huge gaps. For example, the number 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10))))) is easily describable but the vast majority of numbers between zero and that number are not. No matter how abstract and wonderful your description language, it must have a finite alphabet and there is only room in the universe for a finite number of symbols.
No it is not complicated. American law does not apply outside American territory, period.
That's simply not true. There is a presumption of non-extraterritoriality in U.S. law which means that if a law doesn't state otherwise, it is presumed to apply only on U.S. soil (or U.S. military bases, etc.), but laws can explicitly state that they apply outside the U.S. and U.S. courts have found them enforceable (usually when a citizen returns to the U.S. after a foreign trip.) Notable examples are the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which make it a crime to bribe a foreign government. Another example is the Child Protect Act which makes it illegal for American citizens to hire child prostitutes even in countries where the practice is legal (eg. in the Netherlands, 16 years olds can legally work as prostitutes, but if a U.S. citizen hires one while visiting Amsterdam, they can be charged when they return to the U.S.). Another example are violations of certain travel restrictions, such as travel to Cuba, etc. Now, whether or not the search warrant in question is presumed to be non-extraterritorial or not is up to the Supreme Court to decide, but your blanket statement is clearly untrue.
> Math containing infinties doesn't really work.
I don't wish to sound snide: But I think you'll find, if you look more carefully, that It works very well: Infinite series are much of the foundation of calculus. Even countable numbers, involve "infinities" because they are unbounded.
Actually, if you look more closely, and critically, you'll find that things aren't nearly as simple as you describe. For example, what you call "countable numbers" are neither infinite in number, nor unbounded. One hits hard physical limits as one tries to express bigger and bigger numbers. Computers have finite storage. Even if we imagine a computer as large as the known universe, with one bit in every Planck volume, there is only a finite number of numbers describable. The "set of all natural numbers" is really a fantasy. If one looks closely enough, the foundations of calculus are also quite suspect.
The best discussion I've seen on many of these issues can be found in Norman Wildberger's Math Foundation Series, on YouTube. He takes a very critical look at modern mathematics, especially the ideas of infinite sets and "real" numbers. It's definitely worth a look.
Fuse does not work. I physically unplugged the OnStar module in my car and I keep getting phone calls from them telling me that my car needs to be taken in for service because they cannot connect to it.
Just tell them you disconnected it because you don't want the OnStar feature. If the calls persist, just hang up on them. They'll eventually get the message. It sounds like you're letting yourself get bullied by your car company. Not a good idea.
I assume they are using the tag to find the basic URL. I could be wrong. I've done that manually to remove identifying information from links I want to share. I've often called for this to be a feature in web browsers: a copy canonical link button. I hope that's what Chrome is doing.
At one time they considered segregation and slavery legal. The SCOTUS was wrong. They are also wrong on several other things, too...
Actually, the SCOTUS was right. Slavery was legal at the time and it said so in the Constitution. Then the 13th Amendment was passed abolishing slavery. That's the point the original poster was making: if you want gun control, amend the Constitution.
The points of classified ads in the past, or tweets today, is that they can be read anonymously, even from a public computer terminal
Publicly pulling out the spool of silk OTP encodings, and then burning it, is slightly suspicious, however.
Just write down the tweet, or photograph it, then do your OTP decoding at home.
The one important question: Were the messages sent via direct message or were they sent out as public tweets? The New York Times report leaves some ambiguity, but according to James Risen in The Intercept they were very public.
Of course they're public. The whole point is that no one can see who is receiving the messages. They're coded, of course, so only the intended recipient will know what they mean, but possibly even the sender doesn't know who that person is. If DMs were used, that would entirely defeat the purpose: might as well use a secure communications app. The points of classified ads in the past, or tweets today, is that they can be read anonymously, even from a public computer terminal without typing in any login credentials.
Since I usually use VLC for listening to streaming broadcasts of classical music, I will wait for an x64 Windows version.
Does classical music sound better when played on a 64 bit application than it does on a 32 bit? Remember, these "bits" aren't bits of resolution in the digitized audio signal, but rather they're simply the architecture of code: 64 bit code can in theory do more in less time. Streaming of classical music, even at high definition rates of 96kHz sampling frequency and 24 bits per channel of audio should work just fine even in a 32 bit application on any modern CPU.
They're like lots of IOT devices - wide open on the local network for nefarious things like cranking up the volume. Not so much for the exaggerated claim that it can be done from the Internet. That's not happening unless you went out of your way to specifically configure your NAT gateway to allow incoming connections to your TV, in which case it's your own damn fault.
But then you're just moving the security from one device (the television) to another (the router). So if a vulnerability is found in your router, perhaps a zero-day exploit for which a patch isn't available for several weeks, then your television is vulnerable as well. You might say something like "If your router is hacked, have have bigger problems than the fact that someone can control your TV!" That may be true, but it misses the point. There is NO GOOD REASON why televisions need to be designed in such a way that they are vulnerable to this kind of hacking, especially if people don't really want or need a lot of "smart TV" features, i.e. just watching over the air broadcasts, or DVD/BluRay discs, or playing video games. This is why I don't like smart TVs. A separate TV and streaming box is much safer and more flexible.
What really impressed me about Ursula Le Guin wasn't just her incredibly imaginative ideas, but also her great economy with language. She could say in a very short sentence what many writers would need a paragraph or two to say. As someone who has tried to do some writing myself, I really envy that gift.
Not lack of royalties, but a flood of low quality games that Atari had no control over.
Actually, some of the best games for the 2600 were made by third parties like Activision and Coleco (Pitfall, Demon Attack, etc.) and some of the worst were made by Atari (E.T., Pacman, etc.)
Friends were trying to decide which of their children to save.
Save them how, exactly?
I'm surprised an ISP's terms of services would have terms directly about piracy. ISPs are just a pipe.
Very rarely are they "just a pipe". Most often, they are also cable companies, selling packages like HBO, etc. Piracy cuts into their business.
Nonsense. Having guys like him probing our infrastructure is a lot better than leaving the holes wide open for Putin and Xi Jingping. He is providing a public service. It may not be pleasant when you get pwned, but flu shots aren't pleasant either.
The difference is I choose whether or not to get a flu shot. If someone walked down the street jabbing random people with a hypodermic, I'd suggest harsh penalties for them too.
It took 50 million deaths last time those fucks got power, this time we need to kill them all a lot sooner.
I got news for you. Marxists killed many, many more people in the 20th century than Nazis and Fascists combined!
Why do Facebook, Apple, and others thing public information (like what your face looks like) is more secure than a private key that exists only in your mind?
They're not making any such claim. They're proposing using an image of your face as a captcha, not as a login credential.
Intent (mens rea) is always an issue in crime.
But yes, in reality it gets to be pretty bizarre.
But intent is typically a defense against a charge when you've done something that would otherwise be illegal. It's pretty scary when legal activity becomes illegal because of intent. If an advertising flyer is included in every newspaper and it contains ads for children's underwear, could a single guy be charged for failing to throw it in the garbage fast enough? This sounds very scary.
And of course they make no mention of option 3, which avoids both problems and actually protects user privacy: banning the collection of large amounts of data about large numbers of users in the first place.
The problem with that rule is it would effectively outlaw credit reporting agencies. Without those, it would be much harder for banks to offer loans and the effect on the economy of banks tightening up would be devastating, and it would make it virtually impossible for people to get mortgages. Only people rich enough to pay cash for a house would be able to afford one; everyone else would be paying rent to someone else. This would further increase the divide between the very rich, and everyone else.
Cable which can barely do 1080i on a good day. I have seen some broadcasts that were less thsn 480
How will the new TV with ATSC 3.0 broadcast TV spy/target ads at me if it isn't on Wifi or ethernet?
Don't know for sure, but my guess is that ATSC 3.0 tuners will not work without some form of Internet connectivity. It may not need to be 24/7, but probably at least once a week to upload viewing habits and download targeted ad specifications.
Except that users will perceive it as "this old website doesn't work", not "Chrome doesn't work", since the problems only happens in some websites and not others.
I disagree. Microsoft has been down that road. Remember when IE had something like 80% market share? People want all their websites to work, and they can download Firefox for free.
Years ago, websites were designed so that they rendered properly with Internet Explorer. Microsoft didn't have to follow any standards because they had the most widely used browser and Fuck You if you don't use IE.
Now Chrome is the most widely used browser and Google has decided to become the new Microsoft.
But keep in mind, Microsoft no longer dominates the browser market share and there's a reason. It was so difficult for web developers to make sites IE compliant that many non-commercial sites such as might be found at universities etc., recommended Firefox and when Chrome came out, Chrome or Firefox. It turns out there are enough non-commercial sites on the Internet that people started using non-IE browsers just cause Firefox or Chrome seemed to work better with all sites, and not just big commercial ones. If Google follows Microsoft's path, and (according to the article) half the websites on the Internet break in Chrome, it will drive people to Firefox or Edge or something else. There is competition in the free browser market!